The Church has got to be kidding on this one, right?

[Seatuck]

snoopy:

Oh really? My dad just had a colonoscopy and they removed polyps just in case they may become cancerous later on. My friend had a double mastectomy on breasts that did not have cancer–yet–, but through genetic testing and the fact that several close women in her family developed it at an early age, the professionals thought she was at a serious risk. These are examples of “an assessed potential health risk.” It is not a current serious health risk. I believe the church would say these examples are ok, but I’m talking about something more serious. A current health risk associated with an unhealthy, worn out, diseased organ. Again, I’m not talking about sterilization. I’m talking about the removal of an unhealthy organ.

The church has not ruled that it is morally permissable to remove body parts for fear they may someday get diseased. It has said we may removed diseased body parts.
In the case of a “worn out uterus” it is usually no danger to the woman in a non gravid state. So there may not be a moral reason to remove it.

 

[Seatuck]

Linnyo:

you’ve missed the point. some people need sterilised for health reasons not to prevent pregnancy. abstinence in marraige is also a sin.

The church allows us to have medical treatment that my unintentionally result in sterilizations if there are health reasons. Preventing pregnancy is not one of them because pregnancy is not a disease.

Abstinence in marriage is not a sin. There are scriptural references to periodic abstinence for religious reasons for one thing. It is rare for a couple to have no recourse but total abstinence. They should get some more NFP counseling if they think they need to do that but don’t want to. In this day of fertility indicators, multiple methods of NFP etc we have tons of help.A couple may morally choose holy abstinence if they both agree.

 

[Seatuck]

Further, it is now suggested by several studies that a uterus which has been damaged in such a way that would make further pregnancies risky is probably already pre-cancerous, making a hysterectomy generally both medically advisable and morally licit.

I’d need more info on this since , not ever being pregnant is a risk factor for uterine cancer.

 

[pgoings]

paramedicgirl:

Hi pgoings, are you able to provide a reference for these studies?

Sorry, no, not without a bunch of work that I can’t do right now. My wife has a lot of breast cancer in her family, and it was when reading up on various pre-cancerous conditions that I saw this mentioned.

 

[setter]

snoopy:

Oh really? …These are examples of “an assessed potential health risk.” It is not a current serious health risk. I believe the church would say these examples are ok, but I’m talking about something more serious. A current health risk associated with an unhealthy, worn out, diseased organ. Again, I’m not talking about sterilization. I’m talking about the removal of an unhealthy organ.

My understanding of the Church’s teaching as it pertains to sterlization or amputation is that a necessary condition is that “the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism” (source). This is a medical determination and a potential health risk does not fulfil this condition. Of course, I will defer to any authoritative Church statement to the contrary.

 

[rlg94086]

It would be a waste of time, if you prefer to go through life just following rules without understanding them. As the other post explained, informing your conscience is the process of embracing Truth. With a properly formed conscience, you will make proper judgments, rather than asking “what does the Church say I should do” or “what do I personally desire?”

That understood, a properly formed conscience would agree with the Church, so I guess that could be a “litmus test”, if want to call it that. I would say a Saint is someone who has properly formed their conscience. That’s why the Catechism says the formation of conscience is “a lifelong task”. I was going to bold some of the following, but I think all three paragraphs are worth a careful and prayerful read:

II. THE FORMATION OF CONSCIENCE

[1783](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1783.htm’) Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

[1784](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1784.htm’) The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart. [1785](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1785.htm’) In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

patg:

And would the only litmus test for it being properly formed be that it completely agrees with church teaching (or doesn’t disagree with church teaching)? If so, then the process of forming it would seem to be a waste of time.

 

[snoopy]

Seatuck:

The church has not ruled that it is morally permissable to remove body parts for fear they may someday get diseased. It has said we may removed diseased body parts.
In the case of a “worn out uterus” it is usually no danger to the woman in a non gravid state. So there may not be a moral reason to remove it.

If the church has not ruled that it is morally permissible, then it has not ruled that it isn’t morally permissible either. Until that time, I will assume that the decision can be left up to the woman and her doctor. The medical field has progressed to the state where they can predict all sorts of things through genetic testing. Almost to the T. We are not talking about abortions here, we are talking about removing diseased, unhealthy organs. There are some things that one must use common sense for.

 

[snoopy]

setter:

My understanding of the Church’s teaching as it pertains to sterlization or amputation is that a necessary condition is that “the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism” (source). This is a medical determination and a potential health risk does not fulfil this condition. Of course, I will defer to any authoritative Church statement to the contrary.

I am not talking about sterilization. I’m talking about removing an unhealthy, diseased, worn out organ. If sterilization is an indirect result, the church has always said that no sin is committed.

 

[Pug]

Traditional Ang:

Pug:

The Church has held that called the Blessed Virgin Mary the “Ever Virgin Mother of God” since the Council of Chalcydon,

Michael,

I think we have misunderstood eachother. I have no issues with the perpetual viginity of Mary. The doctrine is true, I believe it. I was trying to respond to linnyo and her post #22 and some other post of hers that I can’t seem to find right now, so maybe it was on another thread and hence I confused you. I’m sorry. Don’t worry about me. I am conservative, with no cafeteria tendencies. (My nose wasn’t always so clean, but that was years ago).

 

[Linnyo]

fix:

Conscience is a pupil, not a teacher. It must be formed correctly. It does not invent truth.

You are only commiting a mortal sin if you know without doubt that it is a sin so surely your conscience and knoledge of what is a sin go hand in hand?

 

[Linnyo]

Pug:

Can you clarify? Are you saying that you do not know whether or not the perpetual viginity of Mary is true? So if I asked if you think it is true, you would say, “No, I don’t think that. I am unsure. It could be true or it could be false. I just don’t know.”

Or instead are you saying that you do think it is true, but you don’t happen to know where to find the doctrine in the bible? What are you saying you are unsure of?

I guess both. I am as yet not sure due to various references to Jesus’ brothers/sisters/brethren depending upon version of the Bible.I know she was a virgin whan she conceived Jesus but it doesn’t make her any less holy if she went on to consummate her marraige with Joseph after. In fact, the RCC seems to teach that married couples should not deny each other sexual relations. Does this not seem to be a contradiction?

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t think “without a doubt” is part of the criteria. A properly formed conscience helps you make right decisions, but only knowledge , gravity and action are involved in determining whether a sin is mortal.

IOW…knowing the Church teaches that contraception is a sin and still doing it is a sin, even if your conscience is not properly formed. Knowledge does help you form your conscience, but I wouldn’t say they are hand-in-hand.

Linnyo:

You are only commiting a mortal sin if you know without doubt that it is a sin so surely your conscience and knoledge of what is a sin go hand in hand?

 

[paramedicgirl]

Linnyo:

You are only commiting a mortal sin if you know without doubt that it is a sin so surely your conscience and knoledge of what is a sin go hand in hand?

You are referring to this:

857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
All three of those conditions apply in birth control. There is grave matter, whether you believe it is or not. Full knowledge and deliberate consent also apply, since a woman would not use it unknowingly.

There is also this:
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Writer:

I agree with you to a point. I also think the earlier comment regarding abstinence in marriage was intended to mean something more along the lines of withholding one’s self from the spouse in a one-sided, or selfish way. I would suggest from what we know of Mary and Saint Joseph that there was no a selfish bone in their bodies, so I think applying this argument to them would be silly.

Getting back to the original point, I think the bottom line is the purpose of the surgery. If a side effect of a required medical procedure is sterility, but it is not the purpose in and of itself, than it is okay. But I am just a new Catholic here, so I could be wrong.

Some Catholics I ahve observed on these forums seem to betray a Christian Science mentality to medical care–pray about it, and God will make it better–but I would encourage us to also permit healers (such as Saint Luke) to perform their gift of medicine as well, and sometimes we should simply trust their judgement.

Writer:

Someone linked a Vatican source earlier, and that’s what the Vatican said. We don’t allow cancer to grow simply because it’s cancer of the uterus, and we don’t tell the married couple to abstain afterwards simply because the woman is no longger able to bear children. We tell Catholics to remove the cancer, and to try to get back to living, and to adopt a child or two if that’s what they wish to do.

That’s a different matter from a “worn-out uterus” which we have reason to believe is not not able to deal with having any more children. Setter’s explaination about whether or not the operation would necessary and moral for a single or celebate woman is probably the correct one. As Christians, we aren’t supposed to be massively concerned with what might happened, but to obey God now and submit to His authority now.

The reason for the ban on Artificial Contraception is that the couple using it blocks the action of the Holy Spirit (“The Lord and Giver of LIFE”) and prevents the couple from receiving the Graces the Holy Spirit would give them each time they were intimate if it weren’t for the roadblock raised by the use of Artificial Contraception.

Those graces and their action on the souls of the couples who receive them are the reason for the differences in divorce rates for those who “Contracept” vs. those who follow the Moral Teaching of the Church.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Linnyo:

I totally agree. |You have put into words the way I feel about decisions. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, it probably is and if you go ahead and do it you can expect consequences.

Linnyo:

The Holy Spirit has told the Church for the last 2,000 what we need to do to get into Heaven. The consequences of not following the church and of allowing one’s conscience to conform to our wicked age is that one might not go to Heaven.

I would be REAL careful before I took my supposedly “informed” conscience and set it against the Teaching of the Church. Please take a LONG look at the “FRUIT” of Contraception and the “FRUIT” of Disobedience before you advise people to go that route or decide to do that yourself.

*Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ (Jesus) have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit. Galatians 5:19-25*

Linnyo, we have a destination. the Church’s Moral Laws are all designed to help get us there. You don’t have to follow those laws if you don’t want to go there. But I really don’t think you want to go to the other place. Do you?

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

patg:

And would the only litmus test for it being properly formed be that it completely agrees with church teaching (or doesn’t disagree with church teaching)? If so, then the process of forming it would seem to be a waste of time.

patg:

But I agree with those who say we need to do a lot better job of forming them - Better catechesis and better sermons would help, so would having the bishops of the Church walk and teach with Pope Benedict XVI rather than at cross purposes to him and to each other.

The Church gives a Plenary indulgence for reading the Sacred Scriptures for 30 minutes per day - Maybe the Pope should consider expanding that to include Moral and Spiritual works by orthodox Catholic theologians, Saints or Doctors of the Church if one does the reading in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

EWTN has some shows that deal with moral issues that are very good - I really wish more Catholics would be informed about them.

I’ve just found that the more people inform their consciences with material that teaches the Teaching of the Church, the less often they conflict with the Teaching of the Church.

But, you just might be right, if those reading and listening don’t submit themselves to the judgment of the Holy Spirit as expressed by the Church, all of the reading and listening might just be a waste of time.

But, then there are those of us who find ourselves being reeled in after 20+ years and then using the stuff we learned 25 years ago - Even when we think it’s a waste of time, God still can use it.

Pax Vobiscum, Michael

 

[Seatuck]

snoopy:

I am not talking about sterilization. I’m talking about removing an unhealthy, diseased, worn out organ. If sterilization is an indirect result, the church has always said that no sin is committed.

If the uterus is functioning fine in its ungravid state then it ought not be removed. That’s the point you are ignoring. The uterus is a very resilient organ. It is very rare for it to be in the state you describe.
The uterus would have to be causing problems at the time it is removed not in anticipation of causing problems.

 

[Seatuck]

snoopy:

If the church has not ruled that it is morally permissible, then it has not ruled that it isn’t morally permissible either. Until that time, I will assume that the decision can be left up to the woman and her doctor. The medical field has progressed to the state where they can predict all sorts of things through genetic testing. Almost to the T. We are not talking about abortions here, we are talking about removing diseased, unhealthy organs. There are some things that one must use common sense for.

If the uterus us causing a heath problem for example bleeding, for the woman than she may have it surgically removed. If not then no it would not be permissable .

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Linnyo:

I guess both. I am as yet not sure due to various references to Jesus’ brothers/sisters/brethren depending upon version of the Bible.I know she was a virgin whan she conceived Jesus but it doesn’t make her any less holy if she went on to consummate her marraige with Joseph after. In fact, the RCC seems to teach that married couples should not deny each other sexual relations. Does this not seem to be a contradiction?

Linnyo:

As I told Pug, if it’s that important to you, I can get my friend to give me the list of scriptures or find them myself, but the Doctrine is there.

The Church has taught this since the 1st Century, and has required Christians to believe this since the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), which declared the Blessed Virgin Mary to be the “Ever-Virgin Mother of God”.

The Catholic Church doesn’t believe in “Solo Scriptura”, because the Church didn’t get around to canonizing the New Testament until the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D., and because our Lord promised that he would send the Holy Spirit wgho would lead us into all truth:

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name - he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. John 14:26

"When the Advocate comes whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning. John 15:26

But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. John 16:13-14

In the Book of Acts, one of the decisions begins, “Thus says the Holy Spirit”.

We study the Scripture, but we also have a received “Oral Tradition” which the Church has taught from for almost 2,000 years.

I hope this helps ease the confusion.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Linnyo:

You are only commiting a mortal sin if you know without doubt that it is a sin so surely your conscience and knoledge of what is a sin go hand in hand?

Linnyo:

If what you said were true, then it would have been just about impossible for anyone to ever have committed a Mortal sin and unnecessary for our Lord to have died.

I suggest you read the story about the Fall of Man in Genesis. When you do, you’ll see that Eve was confused about the nature of the prohibition against eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and “The serpent tricked” her. that sin not only was mortal for Adam and Eve, it was Mortal for the rest of us.

Your statements here have provided several examples of what happens when Catholics don’t receive adaquate catechesis. It’s not your fault that you weren’t taught the teaching of the Church, but it is your responsibility to correct that lack.

You might start by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the new Compendium on the Catechism.

Jesus told Pilate that the sin of those who handed him over to Pilate was greater than Pilate’s, not that Pilate was blameless.

In Christ, Michael